Download Report

SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF TREATMENT PLANTS IN ISTANBUL
Gökhan YAZICI1, Aysun KÖROGLU2, Murat AKSEL1, Yusuf HATAY ÖNEN1
1
Istanbul Culture University, Civil Engineering Department, gokhanyazici@iku.edu.tr, m.aksel@iku.edu.tr
yonen@iku.edu.tr
2
Istanbul Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, koroglua@itu.edu.tr
ABSTRACT
Water treatment plants are critical components of infrastructure systems and their failure during earthquakes can
result in significant damages to the environment and interruption of services in addition to financial losses.
This paper investigates the seismic vulnerability of water treatment plants in Istanbul, which is one of the most
populated cities in the world with a population of approximately 13.85 million people and is located on a
seismically active region. Seismic vulnerability evaluation will help to understand the potential threads
originated from the chemicals used in water treatment process units to ambient environment. The seismic
vulnerability assessment takes into account the construction year of the facilities, local soil conditions and the
seismicity of the treatment plant sites. Results of the seismic assessment of these facilities are presented in the
conclusions along with the implications on the environment and post-earthquake services.
Keywords: Seismic Vulnerability, Water Treatment Plants, Contamination, Chlorine byproducts, Disinfection
products
İSTANBUL’DAKİ ARITMA TESİSLERİNİN SİSMİK HASSASİYETİ
ÖZET
Su arıtma sistemleri altyapı sistemlerinin kritik elemanlarındandır. Bu sistemlerde olası deprem durumlarında
meydana gelecek hasarlar çevreye verecekleri zararların yanı sıra sunulan altyapı hizmetinde aksamalara ve
beraberinde maddi kayıplara da sebep olacaktır.
Bu çalışmada yaklaşık 13,85 milyon nüfusuyla dünyanın en kalabalık şehirlerinden ve sismik açıdan aktif
bölgelerden birisi olan İstanbul’da bulunan su arıtma tesislerinin sismik hassasiyetleri değerlendirilmiştir. Sismik
hassasiyet değerlendirmesi su arıtma tesislerinde arıtma amaçlı kullanılan çeşitli kimyasalların tesislerde
meydana gelecek yapısal hasarlarla çevreye yayılmasıyla oluşacak zarar potansiyelinin anlaşılmasına yardımcı
olacaktır. Sismik hassasiyet değerlendirmesinde tesislerin yapılış tarihleri, zemin koşulları ve tesislerin
bulunduğu bölgelerin depremselliği dikkate alınmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sismik Hassasiyet, Su Arıtma Tesisi, Kontaminasyon, Klor, Dezenfeksiyon
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Seismic Vulnerability of Water Treatment Plants
Recent earthquakes have shown that these structures are quite vulnerable to earthquakes. The water treatment
plant serving the city of Concepcion which has a population over 1.300.000 people suffered severe damages due
to liquefaction and ground shaking after the Mw 8.8 Chile earthquake of 2010. As a result, there were water
outages in the city and the water treatment could not serve some of its customers for over a month (Eidinger et
al., 2012). Damaged components of the water treatment plant included the intake structure, clarifier (baffles,
settlers and supporting elements) and suspended ceilings in the control room and water quality laboratory.
International Burdur Earthquake & Environment Symposium (IBEES2015)
Uluslararası Burdur Deprem ve Çevre Sempozyumu
7-9 May 2015, Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur-Türkiye
http://ees2015.mehmetakif.edu.tr – http://ees2015.maku.edu.tr
IBEES2015, 7-9 May 2015
Burdur-Türkiye
Nonstructural damage at the plant also included the toppling of computers, water quality test equipment and
glassware on the countertops (Tang, 2011).. Two water treatment plants suffered extensive damage during the
Mw 9.0 Tohoku earthquake of 2011 due to liquefaction (Eidinger and Davis, 2012). Two of the three steel water
storage tanks were severely damaged due to sloshing and one of the two clarifiers was destroyed at the Calexico
Water Treatment Plant, which supplies all the water to the city of Calexico, after the M w 7.2 Sierra El Mayor
earthquake of 2010. The capacity of the Calexico water treatment plant was reduced by 50% following the
earthquake. The same earthquake also caused significant damages to the two clarifiers and the main steel water
storage tank of the water treatment plant of the city of El Centro (EERI, 2010; Hutchinson, et al., 2010). A water
treatment plant in Feng Yuen suffered significant damage during the M w 7.4 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake of
1999. Extensive sloshing due to ground shaking has dislocated the baffles and caused the partial collapse of the
reinforced concrete roofs of two reservoirs. Underground piping at the plant was also damaged due to earthquake
ground motion (Schiff and Tang, 2000). The Maltepe water treatment plant which provides potable water by
gravity to Adapazari and Erenler lost raw water supply immediately after the Mw 7.4 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake
of 1999 due to power supply failure at the Sapanca pumping plant, the damaged trash rack at the intake structure
and the damages at downstream distribution system pipeline. The full raw water capacity was stored in 5 days
after the earthquake. There was also minor nonstructural damage at the unanchored components. The Yalova
water treatment which serves the communities between Çınarcık and Gölcük also lost raw water supply shortly
after the Kocaeli earthquake due to downstream pipeline damage. The Yalova treatment plant was inoperational
for 2 days due to power outages (Tang, 2000). Two reinforced concrete potable water storage tanks in the
Christchurch, New Zealand were seriously damaged during the M w 7.1 Darfield earthquake of 2010. One of
these tanks was damaged at the roof-wall junction due to the inertial force applied by the roof. The roof of the
other damaged tank collapsed due to the uplift forces caused by the sloshing of the contained liquid.
As these field reports suggest, the wide array of components used in water treatment plants such as liquid storage
tanks, computer systems, pipes, testing equipment and clarifiers contribute to the complexity of these facilities.
Therefore, the operability of water treatment plants not only depends on the performance of the structural
systems but also depends on the individual performance of all their components and the performance of other
infrastructure system components such as power plants, pumping stations and pipelines, as well. The fact that
water treatment plants are usually located on liquefiable alluvial deposits near rivers and lakes and that many of
them were built prior to the development of modern seismic design codes further increase the seismic
vulnerability of these facilities. Analysis of the seismic vulnerability of water treatment plants is therefore a
challenging task due to these complexities.
Over the last few decades, various methodologies have been developed to help decision makers and planners to
make quick and realistic estimates on the seismic vulnerability of water distribution systems and components.
HAZUS , originally released by FEMA in 1997, is one of the most widely used methodologies for assessing the
seismic vulnerability of water treatment plants (HAZUS, 2004; NIBS, 1997). HAZUS methodology classifies
water treatment plants based on their capacity and the anchorage conditions of their components. Water
treatment plants with capacities range as follows:
 Small water treatment plants
: 37854 - 189270 m3/day (10 - 50 mgd)
 Medium water treatment plants : 189270 - 757080 m3/day (50 - 200 mgd)
 Large water treatment plants
: > 757080 m3/day (200 mgd)
Larger capacity water treatment plants are simulated by increasing the redundancy of smaller capacity water
treatment plants. The water treatment plants with anchored components are assumed to be less susceptible to
seismic damage.
According to HAZUS methodology, water treatment plants and storage tanks are assumed to be most vulnerable
to Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) and sometimes to Peak Ground Displacement (PGD) if the treatment plant
is located in liquefiable of landslide zones. Therefore the damage states of water treatment plants and liquid
storage tanks are estimated using these two ground motion parameters. HAZUS uses five damage states, form
ds1 to ds5, which are consistent with the damage states expressed in ATC-13- Applied Technology Council,
nonprofit research organization based in California (ATC, 1985) (Table 1).
261
IBEES2015, 7-9 May 2015
Burdur-Türkiye
Table 1. HAZUS Damage states
ds1
none
ds2
slight/minor
ds3
moderate
ds4
extensive
ds5
complete
Occurrence probability of a certain damage state for a particular water treatment plant at a certain PGA level can
be assessed using the fragility curves based on treatment plant capacity and component anchorage conditions.
Restoration functions, which are primarily used to estimate the number of days required to make a component at
a particular damage state fully operational, are also consistent with ATC-13.
1.2. Water Treatment Plants
Water treatment plants are designed to remove contaminants, sediments and pathogens from water to a certain
level that can be safely consumed without posing any health, economical or ecological risk. Water treatment
processes must meet water quality standards including consumption of water for drinking water, industrial,
medical or other consumption purposes by using physical, chemical and biological processes. In this context,
specifically for potable water treatment, generally combination of many processes such as pre-chlorination,
aeration, coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, desalination, and disinfection processes are applied.
Among these units, disinfection process and sludge dewatering processes (including sedimentation and
coagulation) may need risk assessment evaluations since during these processes tons of chemicals have been
used. For instance, depending on the capacity of the treatment plant, disinfection unit require consumption of
tons of chlorine. Contamination of chlorine in excess amounts with water may result with the formation of
byproducts, such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids, which may pose health risks (WHO, 1996). On the
other hand, pathogens found in tons of water such as total coliforms, which are potentially harmful, Fecal
coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli) may pose a health risk for young children, and people with vulnerable
immune systems; and other many viruses or bacteria groups.
Similar with the disinfection unit, sludge dewatering process require utilization of sludge thickeners which are
found as complex compounds, such as Aluminum Sulfate, Iron-3-Chloride, Polyelectrolyte, Activated carbon
and Potassium permanganate (Lazur & Yanong, 1992).
In any case of failure in the stability of these risky units in a water treatment plant due to an earthquake may
result with the contamination of these compounds to ambient environment. Contamination of these complex
compounds in huge amounts to receiving water bodies, may cause health risk in short or long periods. For
instance, although Aluminium sulphate is accepted as relatively nontoxic, it is irritant to the skin and eyes, and
increased aluminium absorption and retention in bone is reported following acute ingestion without apparent
adverse sequelae [Url 1]. Additional to acute exposure, Chronic exposure to aluminium sulphate in drinking
water may be involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease though this remains a highly contentious issue.
2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN ISTANBUL
Istanbul is one of the most populated cities in the world with a population of approximately 13 million people.
Recent strong earthquakes along the North Anatolian Fault Line, a strike-slip fault line almost identical to the
San Andreas Fault Line in California, has raised concerns over the seismic vulnerability of lifelines in the city of
Istanbul which is in close proximity to this fault line. This study focuses on the seismic vulnerability of water
treatment plants which serve the city of Istanbul.
There are currently 10 water treatment plants in Istanbul, Turkey (Table 2). The geographic distribution of these
water treatment plants is shown in Fig. 1.
Celebi Mehmet Han and Orhaniye water treatment plants are the oldest water treatment plants in Istanbul.
Although, rest of the water treatment plants can be considered as relatively new, only four of these water
treatment plants were constructed after 1998, when the Turkish Seismic Design Code had a significant revision.
262
IBEES2015, 7-9 May 2015
Burdur-Türkiye
Table 2. List of Water Treatment Plants in Istanbul
Longitude
Seismic Zone
(Turkish Seismic
Design
Code
2007)
Capacity
(mgd)
HAZUS 99
Capacity
Classification
41.088891
28.764418
Zone 2
106
Medium
2003
41.088706
28.764688
Zone 2
106
Medium
1989
41.043152
28.591883
Zone 2
106
Medium
1978
41.088190
28.966474
Zone 2
132
Medium
1995
41.087917
28.964699
Zone 2
53
Medium
6
Büyükçekmece
Çelebi
Mehmet Han
Yıldırım
Beyazıt Han
Orhaniye
1979
40.999467
29.327897
Zone 1
100
Medium
7
Osmaniye
1996
40.997282
29.326265
Zone 1
53
Medium
8
Muradiye
Emirli Yavuz
Sultan Selim
Elmalı
1995
41.001466
29.329927
Zone 1
79
Medium
2001
40.998674
29.331498
Zone 1
132
Medium
1994
41.074196
29.099921
Zone 2
11
Small
Plant
ID
1
2
3
4
5
9
10
Water
Treatment
Plant
Fatih Sultan
Mehmet Han
II. Beyazıt Han
Construction
Year
Latitude
1998
Figure 1. a. Water Treatment Plants on the European Side of Istanbul
b. Water Treatment Plants on the Asian Side of Istanbul
263
IBEES2015, 7-9 May 2015
Burdur-Türkiye
The water treatment plants are located on seismic zones 1 and 2 according to the 2007 Turkish Seismic Design
Code. The peak ground acceleration for stiff soil seismic zones 1 and 2 are indicated as 0.40g and 0.30g,
respectively. A quick evaluation of the PGA map of Turkey (10% probability of exceedance in 50 years), shows
that the expected PGA varies between 0.30g and 0.60g at the water treatment plant sites in Istanbul (KOERI,
2014). Upper and lower limits of expected PGA values at the water treatment plant sites are presented in Table 2.
Table 3. Expected PGA limits obtained from the PGA map of Turkey for the 475 year return period earthquake
Plant ID
Water Treatment Plant
PGA Lower Limit (g)
PGA Upper Limit (g)
1
Fatih Sultan Mehmet Han
0.40
0.60
2
II. Beyazıt Han
0.40
0.60
3
Büyükçekmece
0.40
0.60
4
Çelebi Mehmet Han
0.40
0.60
5
Yıldırım Beyazıt Han
0.40
0.60
6
Orhaniye
0.40
0.60
7
Osmaniye
0.40
0.60
8
Muradiye
0.40
0.60
9
Emirli Yavuz Sultan Selim
0.40
0.60
10
Elmalı
0.30
0.40
Anchorage of components significantly decreases the probability of minor and moderate damage states but does
not have a profound effect on reducing the probability of extensive and complete damage states. There are no
strict regulations on the anchorage of components for water treatment plants in Turkey. Since, there is limited
information on the anchorage of water treatment plant components, exceedance probability of damage states
were obtained for anchored and unanchored conditions from HAZUS fragility curves which are presented in
Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Tables 3 and 4, show that the occurrence probabilities of “minor” and “moderate”
damage states are quite high, especially for water treatment plants with unanchored components.
Table 4. Exceedance probability of damage state obtained from the HAZUS fragility curves for water treatment
plants with unanchored components
Plant
ID
Water Treatment
Plant
Probability Ds>ds for PGA lower limit
Probability Ds>ds for PGA upper limit
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
1
Fatih Sultan Mehmet
Han
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
2
II. Beyazıt Han
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
3
Büyükçekmece
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
4
Çelebi Mehmet Han
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
5
Yıldırım Beyazıt Han
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
6
Orhaniye
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
7
Osmaniye
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
8
Muradiye
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
9
Emirli Yavuz Sultan
Selim
0.97
0.72
0.1
0.01
1
0.95
0.35
0.06
10
Elmalı
0.94
0.6
0.17
0.05
0.98
0.8
0.31
0.21
264
IBEES2015, 7-9 May 2015
Burdur-Türkiye
Table 5. Exceedance probability of damage state obtained from the HAZUS fragility curves for water treatment
plants with anchored components
Plant
ID
1
Water
Treatment
Plant
Fatih Sultan
Mehmet Han
Probability Ds>ds for PGA lower limit
Probability Ds>ds for PGA upper limit
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
2
II. Beyazıt Han
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
3
Büyükçekmece
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
4
5
Çelebi
Mehmet Han
Yıldırım
Beyazıt Han
6
Orhaniye
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
7
Osmaniye
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
8
Muradiye
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
9
Emirli Yavuz
Sultan Selim
0,6
0,23
0,1
0,01
0,92
0,65
0,35
0,06
10
Elmalı
0,65
0,3
0,17
0,05
0,85
0,55
0,31
0,1
Restoration functions provided in HAZUS and ATC-13 presented in Tables 6 and 7, show that it may take up to
7 days for the water treatment plants with “minor” and “moderate” damage states to be fully operational.
Table 6. Restoration Function (Normal Distribution) for (After ATC-13)
Damage State
slight/minor
moderate
extensive
complete
Mean (Days)
0.9
1.9
32.0
95.0
(days)
0.3
1.2
31.0
65.0
Table 7. Discretized Restoration Functions for Water Treatment Plants (After HAZUS)
Damage State
slight/minor
moderate
extensive
complete
1 day
65
23
16
7
3 days
100
82
18
8
7 days
100
100
21
9
30 days
100
100
48
16
90 days
100
100
97
47
3. CONCLUSIONS
Although, there is limited information on the local geotechnical conditions of the water treatment plant sites,
almost all of them are located near river beds and lakes, which increase the risk of geotechnical problems such as
liquefaction. Since, the damage state predictions presented in HAZUS primarily depend on the value of the
expected peak ground acceleration; site specific geotechnical studies should be conducted in order to predict
structural failures of these water treatment plants due to local soil conditions. Another issue that has to be
considered in predicting the functionality of water treatment plants is their dependence on other water
distribution system components such as pumping stations, pipelines and storage tanks, as underlined in the case
studies presented in the introduction. Even a study focused on the sole performance of these facilities show that
there is a significant probability of “minor” and “moderate” damage states which could translate into
considerable loss of functionality of the water distribution system for up to 7 days following the event.
As seen on Tables 3 and 4, anchorage of the unanchored components of these water treatment plants can be quite
helpful in reducing the disruption of services immediately after the earthquake.
265
IBEES2015, 7-9 May 2015
Burdur-Türkiye
REFERENCES
 ATC 1985. ATC-13: Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California”, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, California, USA.
 EERI 2010. The Mw 7.2 El Mayor Cucapah (Baja California) Earthquake of April 4, 2010." Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute Newsletter, EERI Special Earthquake Report, July 2010.
 Eidinger, J, and Davis C.A., 2012. Recent Earthquakes: Implications for U.S. Water Utilities, Web
Report #4408, Water Research Foundation, California, USA.
 HAZUS 2004. Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology HAZUS MR4, FEMA, Technical manual.
National Institute of Building Sciences, Washington D.C., USA.
 Hutchinson, T., Hoehler M., Gastelum, A., Watkins, D., and Wood, R., 2010. Observations from the
Sierra El Mayor Earthquake, EERI-UCSD Research Report, California, USA.
 KOERI, 2014. Spectral Ground Acceleration Maps of Turkey, Kandilli Observatory Web Site, (Accessed
10.04.2014) http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/YayInlar/YonetmelIkler_4_12.depmuh
 Lazur, A.M & Yanong, R.P.E., 1992. The Use of Potassium Permanganate in Fish Ponds. FA23, Series of
the School of Forest Resources and Conservation Program in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, UF/IFAS
Extension
 NIBS, 1997a, HAZUS Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodoloy, Users Manual, National Institude of
Building Sciences, Washington, DC.
 Schiff, A.J. and Tang, A.K., 2000. Chi-Chi, Taiwan, Earthquake of September 21, 1999: Lifeline
Performance, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, Monograph 18, ASCE.
 Tang, A.K., 2011. Lifelines Performance of the Mw 8.8 off Shore Biobío, Chile Earthquake, The Twelfth
East Asia-Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, Procedia Engineering, 14,922–
930.
 Tang, A.K., 2000. Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999 including Duzce Earthquake
of November 12, 1999: Lifeline Performance, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering,
Monograph 17, ASCE.
 World Health Organization (WHO), 1996. Trihalomethanes in Drinking-water. Guidelines for drinkingwater quality, 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. Geneva.
 [Url 1] www.pesticideinfo.org/ /Detail_Chemical.jsp?Rec_Id=PC35278#ChemID
266